Oolite Bulletins

You think Willie Walsh cares more about his job than his life?

You would trust him more if he flew his wife instead? Surely then you would say he was a coward.

Cmdr James wrote:

You think Willie Walsh cares more about his job than his life?

You would trust him more if he flew his wife instead? Surely then you would say he was a coward.

It could be, that following his actions over the Unions (his tv interviews), I just really don't like the man, but irrespective of that - his business is going down the tube, and I think, playing the odds is what Willie Walsh does every day, so getting on a plane, that probably won't fall out of the sky is a risk that *willie walsh*, to prove a point, is willing to take. But would he take the same risk with his nearest and dearest? I think that was the point I was trying to make.

Some good pics of Eyjafjallajokull here:

http://www.universetoday.com/2010/04/18 ... ters-away/

I think the airlines would be crazy to assume that they can send planes into the cloud. Flying in ash clouds was banned following two incidents when aircraft (one of them being BA Flight 9) had flame outs on all engines due to the cloud.

What can happen is that the ash melts in the furnace of the engine and becomes molten rock again then spatters all over the inside of the engine, blocking all the ducts and making the engine run harder to move the heavier components. The engine then surges and dies. In addition, the rock and glass in the cloud basically sandblasts any glass surfaces rendering them opaque. Flight 9 had to land on instrument and with no lights thanks to the windscreen and lamp lenses being blasted so badly.

Taking a plane up for half an hour to an hour is fair enough, but flying a plane repeatedly through that cloud for an indeterminate amount of time could be suicide.

One solution might be to allow flights to the northern coastal areas of the continent (France, Belgium etc) then set up a bus or train system to ferry passengers to other destinations that are under the dust cloud. The planes should fly under the cloud so that there's no danger of engine contamination.

Selezen wrote:

The planes should fly under the cloud so that there's no danger of engine contamination.

I was wondering why that's not being done anyways; at 2-3000m up the cloud should be no problem at all.

Probably regulations against "low"-flying commercial planes forbid that?

Lestradae wrote:

Selezen wrote:

The planes should fly under the cloud so that there's no danger of engine contamination.

I was wondering why that's not being done anyways; at 2-3000m up the cloud should be no problem at all.

Probably regulations against "low"-flying commercial planes forbid that?

Noise, fuel consumption, light aircraft, microlights, hot air balloons, less time to react if anything goes wrong - lots of reasons why Passenger liners fly where they do!

Commander McLane wrote:

So it looks like some extra days in Germany for me.

Where in Germany are you?

treczoks wrote:

Commander McLane wrote:

So it looks like some extra days in Germany for me.

Where in Germany are you?

A little more down the Rhine than you. Yesterday I had dinner just where it meets the Ruhr.

snork wrote:

Imagine the volcano just won't stop, for years.

I wonder if there is a science fiction story based on something like this. What difference it would make if nothing else changes but "just" no more flights on northern hemisphere.

Fine for a story, but in reality, it's only jet-engines that are seriously affected. Get a standard prop-plane (although you'd probably want upgraded air filters) and it ought to be fine.

There was an article in the same vein on one of the news sites talking about building extra channel tunnels, high speed rail networks, and reviving passenger shipping as your only way of travel around the world if this keeps up. What bollocks.

Looks like Katla is warming up now..

Forget Eyafallajökull, Mt. Katla Is Now Getting Ready To Rumble

http://hraun.vedur.is/ja/Katla2009/stodvaplott.html

According to the Twitternets, Hekla (not Katla) is erupting. Whee!

Edit: Confirmed-ish: there’s supposed to be a live video stream at http://www.ruv.is/hekla, but unsurprisingly it’s a bit clogged at the moment.

Today’s Hekla fact: it has a lot more ice on it than Katla, all the better for ash production.

After several news sources have been reporting increased seismic activity at Katla, it turns out that some careless damn Icelanders have been freaking people out for nothing.. If you go the seismographic data everyone has been focused on, edit the link to parent directory http://hraun.vedur.is/ja/Katla2009/, it seems to indicate that the graphs are depicting data associated with Eyjafjallajökull, not Katla.

Wish they wouldn't put Eyjafjallajökull data in a folder named Katla. Geez...

Ahruman wrote:

Today’s Hekla fact: it has a lot more ice on it than Katla, all the better for ash production.

Today's Katla fact: When Katla (which qualifies as a super-volcano) erupts, it tends to cause Northern Hemisphere famines due to short growing seasons and much colder than average winters for a year or two. Katla eruptions are described as "vicious".

According to Twitter in the last couple of minutes, Icelanders are saying Hekla is not erupting as the webcam is pointed at Eyjafjallajökull.

Hekla-cam.. looks all clear.

Um… Katla’s eruptions have been several orders of magnitude short of superanythingness.

Merely piddly little Mt. St. Helens-scale stuff.